Critics have crucified it, viewers have bashed it, and it’s likely that no studio in existence will contemplate any form of sequel, prequel or related project. But, is the immense amount of negativity attached to Dylan Dog: Dead of Night really justified? I don’t personally believe so.

The story itself (which is based on the Italian comic book series of the same name) isn’t exactly phenomenal, and the script certainly has its flaws. The most glaring of which, is Dylan’s admittedly wretched dialogue; Brandon Routh is strangely stiff and a little over the top with his brief monologues and (for the most part) poorly written punch-lines. It’s a deficiency I find awkwardly unsettling, as Routh is actually a technically sound actor.

When you conder the care given to Sam Huntington’s character, Marcus, reasoning comes further into question: why in the world would scribes Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer endow the “dekick” with the quality dialogue, while leaving the titular character, Dylan standing in the dark, with vocal tidbits so horrendous he’d have served better as a mute.

On the plus de, the features pacing is terrific. Despite a horde of forgettable vocal exchanges, the action flows smooth and steady. I'd go so far as to say the action almost oozes and it really helps to eliminate any downtime and unnecessary lulls.

As I’ve noted, the script has its weaknesses, but it’s got its strengths as well, which (for some reason) seem to have been ignored by the majority of cinematic pundits. If you don’t get a kick out of some of the nasty creatures on display, you're holding extremely high expectations; If you can't get a laugh out of Marcus and his poorly matched replacement limb, you may need to fine tune your sense of humor.Dylan Dog: Dead of Night, is no award worthy picture, but it’s quite a bit more enjoyable than the typical critic would have you believe. Before you rush to concluons based upon what you’ve read or heard, check the film out and draw your own concluons. You may be a bit surprised.